Bookmark Message

Endosulfan banned, conditionally

India agrees to ban the hazardous pesticide globally, asks for exemptions at home

IN A tactical shift in position, India agreed to a global consensus to ban endosulfan at the recent Stockholm Convention, but asked for exemptions to continue using the pesticide at home for at least five years. So far India had been resisting the ban on the grounds that scientific evidence was insufficient to prove that the pesticide was hazardous. It is the largest producer and consumer of endosulfan in the world.

The decision was taken on April 29 at the fifth Conference of Parties (COP-5) of the UN-backed convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) in Geneva. Even at this convention, observers say, India tried to circulate a draft statement on behalf of Asia Pacific countries suggesting the pesticide has no health hazards. Bahrain, Qatar and Jordan opposed it. China, also a major producer, supported a conditional ban. Later India began stressing on a consensus decision, fearing it risked being isolated if the matter was put to vote.

So far, 81 countries have banned or phasing out the pesticide, known to be an endocrine disruptor and neurotoxin; 12 others do not allow its use. In India, it is banned only in Kerala and Karnataka following health impacts in Kasaragod and Dakshin Kannada districts where endosulfan was aerially sprayed on cashew plantations for over 20 years. Activists and political leaders have welcomed India’s decision at the convention.

But the conditional exemption to use the pesticide for 16 crops has not gone down well with many (see ‘Exempted crops’). These are the crops for which the Central Insecticides Board allows the use of endosulfan. Exemptions allowed to India, China and Uganda are worrisome, says G V Ramanjaneyulu of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a non-profit in Hyderabad. Such exemption is ineffective in India as once a pesticide is allowed for use it is used on several other crops, despite not being approved for, he adds. Kerala is an example of how conditional ban of endosulfan might impair efforts for a global elimination.

Though banned in Kerala, endosulfan is being smuggled into the state through porous borders. Unlike other countries that will have to comply with the ban within a year, the exemption allows India to phase out endosulfan over five years. It can extend the exemption period by five years if alternative to the pesticides are not found. Besides, under Annex A listing, the ban takes a year to become effective, which means, on paper, India can extend the phasing out process for 11 years. “This is like a post-dated cheque,” says Gopal Krishna of Toxic Watch Alliance, an advocacy group in Delhi.

Both human and environmental health will continue to be affected as long as the phase out takes place. Besides, there is no clarity as to who would suggest the alternatives to endosulfan and whether India is even looking for an organic, safer alternative, says B Ekbal of Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, a civil society group. If a banned pesticide has to be replaced with another pesticide it is of no use, he adds.

The phase-out process will begin only after the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) ratifies the decision. Though environment minister Jairam Ramesh guided India through the tactical shift at the convention and could speed up phase-out, he is not a part of the CCEA. The fear is Sharad Pawar, the Union agriculture minister, who is a supporter of the pesticide lobby and part of CCEA, could delay both the ratification and phasing out process.

Why not immediate ban?

The Supreme Court has admitted a petition by the Democratic Youth Federation of India seeking a ban on the production, sale and use of endosulfan across the country.

Hearing the petition on May 2, the bench, comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia, Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar, asked the Centre to explain why there should not be an immediate ban on the pesticide against which there have been proven records of consequences on human health.

The bench has directed Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to present the Centre’s response at the next hearing on May 11.

“India’s record in honouring the Stockholm Convention has been poor. The National Implementation Plan (NIP demonstrates how obligations under the convention will be implemented) that should have been submitted to the UN body in 2008 is still in the drafting stage,” says Krishna. Endosulfan will be part of it only after NIP is finalised.

Some are optimistic. R Sridhar of Thanal, a non-profit in Kerala, says India is under pressure to phase out endosulfan in five years as extension is not automatic. It will have to go back to the COP plenary of the convention and explain why it failed to find alternatives. India has successful examples of alternative farming in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Countries that have banned endosulfan are using alternatives so there is no dearth of information, Sridhar explains.

Move from news to views and get in-depth reports on issues that matter to you, every fortnight. Subscribe now »

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless.You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

Happy to note that our

Happy to note that our leaders have accepted ill effects of endosulfan with a condition of buying 5 years time. In this connection, some of the key issues on which we all need to concentrate are:

@ what is the need to buy the time with a condition?
@ who is interested to continue the damage caused
already to the peole and environemnt?
@ who are going to be the victims or looser?
@ what will happen to the people who got affected?
@ who is going to take the responsibility of their
rehabilitation with support systems including
livelihood?
@ who is going to get the benefit or cream?
@ what is the reason to allow the victim or
looser to get further sufferers?
@ what is the reason to allow the gainer to get more
benefit?
@ is it the fact there that is no alternative for
this killer endosulfan?
@ is it the fact that our research wing is not having
any need based future plans?
@ whom to blame for this critical situation i.e., the
user or producer or seller or policy makers?
@ certainly it is the group consisting of producer,
seller and policy makers.
@ who believes this?
@ why this group should realize?
@ this group is not burning their fingers?
@ this group enjoy the taste ofcream?

................ the list will continues as the problem is expected to continue though the solution is at some distance. It is like hide and seek game.

Based on the well known version that, polluters should pay the penalty for the damage cause for the people and environment, now the manufacturers should pay for the rehabilitation of the affected people and environment.

Hope, people will raise to the occasion to get the support for the damage caused by the cream eater.

Looking forward for better and strong network for getting the right choice with need based strategies and interventions.